Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread [See new thread]

[Bigcheese]

"Basic risk vs. reward." Please explain this. Where is the greater risk playing in an underpopulated (by players) part of Open?

There's a difference between finding your own spot and switching the bad guys off. Community goal is a great example.

One means you had to solve a problem, one means you went ghost mode. Feeling entitled to your own private everything while still affecting the open universe is just nuts.

"and just terrible for immersion with people going ghost mode." No such thing as 'ghost mode' this is a lable used by some players to try to demonise legitimate use of the mode system.

You are in the same universe sort of but invisible and unable to be interacted with. Like a ghost.

It is what it is. No need to solve any problems at all when ghost mode exists. It's a tremendous shame.

 

[Joe Spivey]

Imagine if we had to trade in open. We'd be using escorts etc. Blockades could actually be useful. We'd see more people doing a bigger variety of things in open. We would have to fully utilize the game to solve problems instead of just switching the hazards off.

Imagine if you had to fight in open. Good spots would actually be worth something. There would be much larger and more varied battles at this location. This community goal would be a lot more meaningful. Areas might actually have some meaning to them. It goes on and on.

So much is lost it's not even funny. This was a disastrous decision for the game's longevity.

Which is fine and dandy for the players who get their jollies from that sort of play. For those who don't however... except you don't care about them. Stop trying to impose your idea of what is fun game play on others.

 

[Sim Maker]

This is jusy my thoughts on the subject. I dont think solo or group play makes or breaks the game. If you like the risk of being attacked by other players the go with open play.

Now you might say that playing in solo allows a player to get best ships with out much risk and this is true. However the game depends upon skill as a pilot to survive. No matter how great the ship and weapons there are on a ship can beat that of an experienced pilot.

In short the minute you move in to open play the stakes become higher. If you dont have the skills another pilot is going to kill you. Its that simple.

The fact is this a massive game and in time players are going to spread out. Running across othwr playwrs will become increasingly rare. If not the dev will find ways to push players apart and make them spread out in the galaxy.

So nothing is is ruined or does the game give an advantage to one player over another. If any thing open players will have a better advantage just from they are all ready use to open player. Where solo player wont be. Going against AI is one thing but going against human players is a whole other ball game

The problem comes when you have Open and Solo players "competing" in Community events............in general yes, open and solo can co-exist.......but when it comes to "competition".......read on.........and ask yourself, is this "fair" in a competion?.....
========================
Observations from CMDR FalconFly posted earlier in this thread.....
.
Solo : ultra-easy mode. I could have grinded that in a shieldless Type-9, for as long as I could stand the grind. Delivered ~26000tons within 6 hours or so. Good chances of making Top spot, for a brief Moment I made it #4 overall.
.
Open : holy moly! Ultra-hardcore mode instead. I only risked a Type-6 and was glad I used this ride - Interdiction Hell deluxe! Never did so many PvP Evasions in my whole life. Barely managed ~400tons through that Chaos. Reaching top 5% or even top spots? Not a chance in hell.
========================
.
Discuss.....

...
Maybe the DEVs can do Seperate "Winners"....Open winners and Solo winners...I am cool with that............but to have Solo and Open competing like this.........don't seem quite right.

 

[Joe Spivey]

I just did, read it again. Go slowly if you need to.

Then please answer the question included in the quote. Where is the greater risk playing in an underpopulated (by players) part of Open. There i repeated it for you. Go slowly if you need to

 

[Bigcheese]

Which is fine and dandy for the players who get their jollies from that sort of play. For those who don't however... except you don't care about them. Stop trying to impose your idea of what is fun game play on others.

Who said anything about removing solo/groups? Get a hold of yourself and stop making absurd, thoughtless arguments.

It seems that you don't care about anyone else as you want to have your cake and eat it too. I have no problems with solo or private groups, why would I?

You would sacrifice all of what I said for what, to pop in and out of a universe you don't even care about? That's insanely selfish.
You really need to think these things through...so does FD.

The problem comes when you have Open and Solo players "competing" in Community events

This is a good point as well. Besides open losing out on a ton of dynamic gameplay, the background simulation is meaningless when ghosts can effect it.

 

[telperion]

Imagine if we had to trade in open. We'd be using escorts etc. Blockades could actually be useful. We'd see more people doing a bigger variety of things in open. We would have to fully utilize the game to solve problems instead of just switching the hazards off.

Imagine if you had to fight in open. Good spots would actually be worth something. There would be much larger and more varied battles at this location. This community goal would be a lot more meaningful. Areas might actually have some meaning to them. It goes on and on.

So much is lost it's not even funny. This was a disastrous decision for the game's longevity.

So you're an advocate for forcing open play on the community at large?

I entirely disagree with you regarding that decision having the effect on the game's longevity you think it will have. That decision keeps all those people that would otherwise quit due to being constantly griefed. Some people simply don't want to do pvp.

As far as I can see from the threads I've read, most people who complain about people not being forced into open play only complain because they want more player targets. Not combat targets, just people to gank. I entirely agree that if you log into open you shouldn't be able to combat log and switch into solo. It's a choice you make and you should have to stick by that choice which is the reason I lost the only ship I've ever lost (other than face planting into stations by not paying attention or bugs). I could have combat logged but I decided that the guy beat me and deserved the kill. I chose to join open play so I chose to live (or die in this case) by that decision.

But that doesn't mean that if you chose to play solo you should be penalised for that choice. It's not an MMO. The open play, group play and solo choices are just that. It's just that you'll generally only get griefed if you log into open. I play EVE as well and whilst I love the persistent one shard world of that it does put a LOT of people off because they're forced to endure being ganked, sometimes continuously, without any recourse to... well... anything. In order to combat it they have to join large groups for protection. ED isn't like that. It's all about the lone wolf or wolfpacks. This was a design decision by ED and I don't think they're likely to change it to map to EVE-cockpit as some people seem intent on insisting on.

 

[Bigcheese]

So you're an advocate for forcing open play on the community at large?

Nope.

I'm saying open players should play with open players. Switching back and fourth is cheap and effects the game in many negative ways which have been described to death.

Choice is good, but you gotta choose.

 

[telperion]

Choice is good, but you gotta choose.

I agree with you. How often should you have to chose though? Once, when you create your character after which you're stuck in solo or group or open play? Or once an hour? Once a day or week? What would you consider to be fair?

 

[Bigcheese]

I agree with you. How often should you have to chose though? Once, when you create your character after which you're stuck in solo or group or open play? Or once an hour? Once a day or week? What would you consider to be fair?

Once. This is a problem that was solved long ago.

I'd make all existing saves open and you can switch to solo/group at any time. You an't go back though. From a design standpoint, this entire debate is old hat imo.

 

[telperion]

Once. This is a problem that was solved long ago.

I'd make all existing saves open and you can switch to solo/group at any time. You an't go back though. From a design standpoint, this entire debate is old hat imo.

Hmm.. That's too restrictive for me and probably for the majority of other players so I suspect it'll never happen.

 

[Bigcheese]

Hmm.. That's too restrictive for me and probably for the majority of other players so I suspect it'll never happen.

It's how most games work. It works. They didn't solve any problems here, they just created new ones.

They also rendered their own background simulation meaningless when ghosts can effect it.

What if you could disable hostile npcs? Some people would certainly take advantage of that, but is that good? This is not dissimilar to letting people switch modes at will.

 

[telperion]

It's how most games work. It works. They didn't solve any problems here, they just created new ones.

They also rendered their own background simulation meaningless when ghosts can effect it.

What if you could disable hostile npcs? Some people would certainly take advantage of that, but is that good? This is not dissimilar to letting people switch modes at will.

I can disable hostile NPCs at will. Just head far enough outside known space.

Just because other games do something it doesn't mean ED has to. They have a working design philosophy which enough people seem to like most of that they only really need to tweak it to keep it meaningful. Stopping people from combat logging would help.

The rest of it is simply a matter of opinion. You say that your game is spoilt by people being able to shift between solo and open. Well, I say that being stopped from doing this would spoil my game (and plenty of others'). I like being able to log into open when I'm feeling in the mood for crazy risk taking but sometimes I just want to chill out after work and shoot some npcs or do some trading free from the people who's entire purpose for playing is to off other players.

So as we have different (and valid) opinions, lets agree to disagree.

Edit - But in open play ghosts affect the community goals. There are shed loads of people not in your instance who are affecting it. So someone in open with no other players in their instance is affecting the outcome just the same as someone in solo. Due to instancing this argument is kind of invalid.

 

[BigFW]

Edit - But in open play ghosts affect the community goals. There are shed loads of people not in your instance who are affecting it. So someone in open with no other players in their instance is affecting the outcome just the same as someone in solo. Due to instancing this argument is kind of invalid.

Last I read when XBone users start playing they will effect the same 'Environment' but will not be able to play against PC Players so there will be even more ghost players. I bought on the back of an Offline mode but hey ho. I play in Open or Mobius so don't have a problem with switching.

 

[Cody]

<chuckles>

 

[Joe Spivey]

It's how most games work. It works. They didn't solve any problems here, they just created new ones.

They also rendered their own background simulation meaningless when ghosts can effect it.

What if you could disable hostile npcs? Some people would certainly take advantage of that, but is that good? This is not dissimilar to letting people switch modes at will.

What is your definition of a 'ghost' in this context? A player in another mode who affects 'your' mode?

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

What is your definition of a 'ghost' in this context? A player in another mode who affects 'your' mode?

This:

It boils down to "If I can't kill you, you're a ghost" seeing that ghosts can't be killed. You otherwise notice their effects in other ways.

 

[Nomadski]

Really? There are this many angry gamers demanding everyone plays their way? 95 pages of nonsense.

Wonder where all these passionate gamers were when money had to be stumped up to make this game happen in the first place, I'm not recognising too many names.

 

[telperion]

Really? There are this many angry gamers demanding everyone plays their way? 95 pages of nonsense.

Wonder where all these passionate gamers were when money had to be stumped up to make this game happen in the first place, I'm not recognising too many names.

Welcome to the influx of EVE players. Take a look at their forums at some point to see where this lot get their sense of entitlement from

 

[Zorkin]

May be I will play open if the following penalties are imposed to murderers:

1. Murderers pay for the cost of the killed ship.
2. Thier insurance cover drops after each murder until 0%.
3. Immediate (very) negative reputation from affected factions.
4. Mass murderers should have thier ships confescated. Let them start with the badic sidewinder with 1000CR again.

Until then solo only.

 

[Norwyn]

It's really odd and yes, bit unfair design decision that Open and Solo are same universe, that you can criss cross as you like between them... I wonder if solo players had something to do with whole Lugh - Crimson State Group situation not leading anywhere... We'll of course never know, since FD wont tell us.

IMHO solo/group should be separated from open. Separate all player assets and universes/economies. If you wanna play single player or pve, sure go ahead. At least then you cannot abuse the system so that you make 7million per hour in trading safe in solo, from which you can jump to open with your assets and grief other players with your high cost pimped out ships.